More harsher Treaty of Brest-Litovsk?

What if the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was even harsher than it was IOTL. The following is an example.
Article I: Russia will recognize the independence of Siberia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Krygyzstan, and Turkmenistan
Article II: Russia will cede Besserabia (Romania was split between AU and Bulgaria) and Crimea to Austria-Hungary
Article III:Russia will cede Armenia, Georgia, Kars, and Azerbaijan to the Ottoman Empire
Article IV: Russia will cede Finland, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Belerus, Azov, Ukraine, and Lithuania to Germany
Article V: Russia must accept blame for starting the war
Article VI: Russia will be forced to pay 900 billion Russian Rubles to each of the Central Powers as war reparations
Article VII: All propaganda directed at any or all of the members of the Quadruple alliance will be banned
Article VIII: Russia must reduce her army to 10,000 men and is forbidden to have a navy or air force

What would be the consequences of this absurdly harsh treaty? Would the Allies be even more determined to fight Germany? Would the Russians be instantly plunged into famine an economic crisis? Would the world be so shocked that they all declare war on Germany? Or would they all be just like "Meh, another day, another country is humiliated and is plunged into civil war and famine"?
 
The thing is, the Bolshevik regime wasn't the only one which badly wanted peace. Austria-Hungary was particularly desperate for some kind of peace, with the food situation getting worse and worse and the industry paralyzed by strikes; and Germany's overall economic situation was only somewhat better off.

If Germany torpedoes the peace talks by insisting on such unlikely terms...it doesn't just mean more suffering and instability for Russia and the rest of eastern Europe, it means the same thing for the Central Powers. Such a step will cause massive protests and instability in both Germany and Austria-Hungary. In fact, A-H might even try to sign a separate peace with the Bolsheviks, and there's no telling how that kind of a conflict between the Central Powers might end.
 
We're the Soviets really that desperate for peace? Because this is the equivalent of the Treaty of Versailles pruning Germany down to Brandenburg and East Prussia. If I had any military capabilities at all, I think I'd be tempted to let the Kaiser know where he could go and how to get there.
 
The only way a harsher Brest-Litovsk could matter in the long run is if it somehow allows more CP troops to be transferred to the west to such an extent that the 1918 Spring Offensive succeeds and France collapses before the US arrives in force, which to be honest I do not see happening, although I am not a WW1 expert so I could be wrong. Otherwise, the Bolsheviks are just going to retake all that they gave away in the treaty once the Wallies break the Heer and Germany collapses.
 
The only way a harsher Brest-Litovsk could matter in the long run is if it somehow allows more CP troops to be transferred to the west to such an extent that the 1918 Spring Offensive succeeds and France collapses before the US arrives in force, which to be honest I do not see happening, although I am not a WW1 expert so I could be wrong. Otherwise, the Bolsheviks are just going to retake all that they gave away in the treaty once the Wallies break the Heer and Germany collapses.

The Germans did have to station troops in the areas they got from Brest Litovsk, so acquiring more land won't help them on the western front.

Also regarding the OP, states like Kyrgyzstan and Turkmenistan were only really consolidated during the Soviet Union. Realistically, Germany would be demanding the "emancipation of the Emirates of Bukhara and Kokkand" or some such. Nor would a "900 billion ruble" indemnity be even remotely payable. That's several times the entire Russian economy in 1917.
 
Top